Q2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 127 
ing order: Murfreesboro, Pierce, Ridley, and Lebanon. Although the Carters 
formation which succeeded the Lebanon was originally included in the Stones 
River group by Safford, it was thrown out by Ulrich and Bassler because it 
was correlated with the Lowville and could not be included in their Chazyan 
Stones River group. Views on this subject have lately changed, and it has been 
shown that the rocks of the Stones River group of the Central Basin of Tennes- 
see were deposited after those of the Chazy (G. A. Cooper in Schuchert, 1943, 
p- 474; B. N. Cooper, 1945a, pp. 262-275). In 1949 C. W. Wilson (p. 24) 
returned the Carters (originally Carters Creek) formation to its old position 
at the top of the Stones River group. 
The term “Stones River group” is appropriate to the Central Basin of Ten- 
nessee and possibly parts of Alabama but not to most parts of the Appalachians 
to which it has already been applied. For years this term has been used for the 
lower or “Chazyan” part (Lenoir through Lincolnshire) of the Appalachian 
section from Pennsylvania to Alabama. It was also just as inappropriately ap- 
plied to parts of the Minnesota section. Identification of the Carters formation 
of the Central Basin as Lowville, because of the presence of Tetradiwm cellulo- 
sum, was the chief factor in declaring the subjacent beds, Lebanon through Mur- 
freesboro, as Chazyan in age. A similar error was made in the Appalachians in 
identifying all the formations below the Cryptophragmus and Tetradium cellu- 
losum-bearing ‘““Lowville” as Chazyan in age. This threw the lower formations 
of the Appalachians into correlation with the Stones River formations. Thus, 
because of the common presence of Maclurites and the position in relation to 
“Mosheim” rocks, Lenoir and Ridley were correlated, and from these false 
premises many other errors were brought about which are detailed by B. N. 
Cooper (1945a). (See Chickamauga. ) 
Examination of the fossils of the Stones River formations of the Central Basin 
of Tennessee shows that the affinities of this group are with the old Black River— 
Trenton (Wilderness) assemblage of formations rather than with the Chazy 
(Marmor). It is evident, therefore, that the Stones River as a group term 
should be dropped from the Appalachians. 
Stover member of Benner formation.—Mostly a dense, heavy-ledged 
limestone with Camarocladia markings numerous. The formation attains a thick- 
tion of about 90 feet but varies to a low of slightly less than 30 feet. The forma- 
tion was described by Kay (1944, p. 17) and its type section is at Union Fur- 
nace in central Pennsylvania. Cryptophragmus occurs with a few other fossils. 
Brachiopods are: 
Ancistrorhyncha sp. *Strophomena sp. aff. S. filitexta (Hall) 
Glyptorthts sp. Strophomena sp. 
*Opikina sp. cf. O. wagneri (Okulitch) Zygospira sp. cf. Z. recurvirostris (Hall) 
Correlation of the Stover member of the Benner formation.—Cryptophragmus, 
Camarocladia, and Zygospira indicate correlation with part of the Witten forma- 
tion of Cooper and Prouty. 
Strasburg formation.—This is another undefined name of Ulrich’s (1939, p. 
